Re: Hard-coded colors



Thank you for your detailed explanation, but the most important issue 
is about the hard coded colors and the fact that they look awful in 
a dark theme. Is that fixable? 

I see two solutions:

1) no colors for the messages in the headers, only for the icons
2) colors can be changed by the user in the preferences

--
Mi┼ču

├Än data de 06.03, ora 20:42, Albrecht Dre├č a scris:
> Am 06.03.04 14:04 schrieb(en) Misu Moldovan:
> > But are these colors really needed? After all, the icons are colored
> > already and are pretty self-explanatory.
> 
> The text in the message header space gives a little more detailed  
> information about the signature status than the icon in the message list.  
> I tried to implement something like a "traffic light": green is a fully  
> trusted good signature, yellow a good signature with insufficient trust  
> and/or validity, and red a bad signature, which can have a lot of  
> different reasons. A blue (not from the traffic light; maybe steel? ;-) 
> padlock in the message list indicates encryption.
> 
> > Or even better, get rid of the extra line that informs you that
> > the signature is valid/invalid and rely on the icon alone. Or at
> > least give us back the full control over the displayed headers and
> > make it possible to disable that line.
> 
> Well, you always have a detailed signature info for each signed part, and  
> of course you can switch to the structure view tab to see more  
> information, so in this respect you're right. On the other hand, the icon  
> in the message list reflects a *combined* crypto status. Remember that a  
> signed message may contain an other (e.g. forwarded) signed message with  
> *different* crypto status. You may nest this over several levels, which  
> makes things quite complicated. So the scheme for the message list is as  
> follows:
> 
> - a blue padlock says that the message is encrypted, but the signature may  
> be bad;
> - a red one says that at least one signature of that message (if there is  
> more than one) is bad, but others may be good;
> - a yellow one says that the message contains all good signatures, but at  
> least one has insufficient trust/validity and
> - only if the icon is green, *all* signatures are good and trusted at  
> least marginally.
> 
> So in the end (and this was the reason for me to implement it this way) I  
> think the combination of the padlock and the short status in the header  
> gives a good clue about which parts of a message are trustworthy and which  
> not, without the need to switch to the tree viev.
> 
> Cheers,
> 	Albrecht.
> 
> 
> -- 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  Albrecht Dre├č  -  Johanna-Kirchner-Stra├če 13  -  D-53123 Bonn (Germany)
>        Phone (+49) 228 6199571  -  mailto:albrecht.dress@arcor.de
> _________________________________________________________________________
> 




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]